Indian Guyanese commemorated “Indian Arrival Day” yesterday and we continue with our comment from last week on the disputation between Dr Henry Jeffrey’s call for “a radical religious inclusiveness” versus Swami Aksharananda’s call for “a radical separation between church and state”. My point of entry was Dr Jeffrey’s citation of the political philosopher John Rawls’ proposals to address the challenges of how to organise a stable state under conditions of modernity: characterised by groups hewing to “conflicting comprehensive doctrines”. What we know in Guyana to be “plural societies”.
The question addressed by Rawls should interest us in Guyana, divided also so many fault lines. He asked: “[H]ow is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?” Rawls is suggesting if we don’t have an answer, we might as well “pack up shop”. Some have actually reached this conclusion.
Rawls answers are very nuanced and attention must be given to the specific meaning he gives to the words he carefully chooses in his proposals. For instance, his use of the word “justice” is deontological and privileges the rights of individuals over the “good” as opposed to consequentialism. Obviously, this will have consequences in concrete application of his principles, or even in thought experiments.
The citation from Rawls Dr Jeffrey offered, concerned how necessary public discussion may be conducted in plural societies. “Reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public discussion at any time…provided that in due course proper political reasons…and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines – are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support.”
The word “reasonable,” to Rawls has the specific meaning of being willing to respect the equal dignity of all citizens. What this means is only those aspects of an individual “comprehensive doctrine” that are not “reasonable” should be offered in public discussion with individuals holding to other comprehensive doctrines if the latter’s dignity is not respected. These can form an “overlapping consensus” on political issues.
In the event that precipitated the Guyanese colloquy, the Christian pastor with a particular (religious) comprehensive doctrine was not even speaking in a “public space” but a space reserved for the education of all citizens, with the constitution of Guyana forbidding persons be “required to receive religious instruction” there. While the Pastor would have argued – as Dr Jeffrey did – that the instruction might have been for the “good” of the children, the Guyana Constitution follows Rawls and privileges the rights of non-Christian children over the “good”, as expounded by the pastor. The assertion: “Hinduism is clearly a false religion…clearly a satanic religion, very wicked” isn’t exactly respecting the right to dignity of the Hindu children in the audience.
What Rawls said was the state – in schools and elsewhere – is only entitled to educate people in the values of citizenship – in our case, what, some years ago – following Rawls – I called the values of “Guyaneseness”.
In the quote cited, “proper political reasons” as used by Rawls is not what Dr Jeffrey says he “takes this to mean whether or not we take a religious or non-religious position, it must be backed up by proper logical and/or empirical reasoning.” Firstly, Rawls says reasons have to concern the “political”: they must discuss the legitimacy of what Rawls calls “the basic structure of a society” – the fundamental political, social and economic institutions – that facilitate social cooperation. Rawls says this willingness to only offer “political reasons” flows from a ‘duty of civility’, which is the foundation of a well-ordered society.
It was for this reason Rawls had to jettison by 1993, even the comprehensive liberalism of “Justice as Fairness” (1971) which was tied to Kant’s values of autonomy and self-realisation as the ideals of human perfection. But Rawls insisted that the political principles that guaranteed liberty and fairness to all, should be acceptable to persons of all backgrounds and religions – once there is mutual respect.
However, he warned: “That there are doctrines that reject one or more democratic freedoms is itself a permanent fact of life, or seems so. This gives us the practical task of containing them—like war and disease—so that they do not overturn political justice.”
